Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 21st December, 1962, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of the right honourable Hugh Todd Naylor Gaitskell, C.B.E., Member for Leeds, South, and David Llewellyn Mort, esquire, Member for Swansea, East, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable and honourable Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Contractors

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the principal contractors to the Post Office for clothing, paper, electronic and building requirements and the location of such contracts in the past three years.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): As the Answer contains a long list of names, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well, but can the hon. Lady say whether any contracts of this nature have been placed in the North-East or diverted there? Is she aware that for several months we have been pleading with the Government to divert such contracts to the areas of high unemployment? What are they going to do about it? Will she notify Lord Hailsham, who is now charged with dealing with unemployment in the North-East, that this would be a means of dealing with the situation immediately?

Miss Pike: I think that much of this information will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of our concern in this matter, and I remind him that we are moving the Savings Bank to Durham, which is an earnest of our intention to do what we can for the North-East.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Lady realise that I want to carry the matter a little further north than it has been carried by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)? Is she aware that there are factories and workers in Aberdeen able and willing to execute these orders with celerity and efficiency? Will she see


that some of these orders go to Aberdeen, or at least north of the Border and not all south of the Border, as Lord Hailsham is apparently directing his attention to south of the Border, entirely neglecting the north of Scotland? It is utterly unfair.

MAIN CONTRACTORS
FACTORY LOCATION


Clothing


E. Clegg &amp; Sons Ltd
Littleborough, Lancs.


J. Compton Sons &amp; Webb Ltd
London and Swindon.


Fox Bros. Ltd.
Wellington, Somerset.


R. Gaunt &amp; Sons Ltd
Farsley, Yorks.


F. W. Harmer &amp; Sons Ltd
Norwich.


G. H. Hirst &amp; Co. Ltd
Batley, Yorks.


Howe &amp; Coates Ltd.
Manchester.


Joshua Hoyle &amp; Sons Ltd.
Manchester.


Johnson &amp; Sons Ltd.
Gt. Yarmouth and Gorleston.


H. Lotery &amp; Co. (Uniforms) Ltd
Newport, Mon.


Manclark &amp; Sons Ltd.
Edinburgh.


Moore Taggart &amp; Co. Ltd.
Glasgow.


Pearson Bros. Ltd
Golcar, Huddersfield.


Shaw Bros. Ltd
Huddersfield.


J. Smith &amp; Co. (Derby) Ltd
Rhymney, Derby and Chesterfield.


G. Strauss &amp; Sons Ltd
Salford, Stalybridge and Gt. Harwood


Paper


This is mostly procured through Her Majesty's Stationery Office Direct contractors to the Post Office include:—


Percy Boyden &amp; Co.
Waddon, Croydon.


Caribonium Ltd
Leyton, London.


Kado Ltd.
Stockton-on-Tees.


Portals (John Allen &amp; Sons) Ltd
Ivybridge, Devon.


Thames Paper Supplies Ltd.
London.


Waterlow &amp; Sons Ltd
Dunstable, Beds.


Electronic Equipment


Contractors to the Post Office for telephone apparatus and exchange equipment include:—


Associated Electrical Industries Ltd.
Woolwich and West Hartlepool.


Automatic Telephone &amp; Electric Co. Ltd.
Liverpool.


Ericsson Telephones Ltd.
Beeston and Sunderland.


The General Electric Co. Ltd.
Coventry and Middlesbrough.


The Phoenix Telephone and Electric Works Ltd.
Hendon, Middlesex.


The Plessey Co. Ltd.
Ilford.


The Pye Group
Cambridge, London and Airdrie.


Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd
Woolwich and Southgate, London; N. Ireland, Newport and Treforest.


Buildings



Large building projects are handled by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Any contracts placed by the Post Office are small and local.

Giro System

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General whether he now intends to introduce a giro system to be operated by the Post Office.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am afraid that I cannot at present add to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 27th March last.

Mr. Williams: As this matter has now been under active consideration by

Miss Pike: That is another question. I wish to take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Member for Easington. I should have said that the Savings Certificate Division was moving and not the Savings Bank.

The following is the list:

the Post Office for nearly five years, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time that he became frank with the House and stated what he proposes to do with this new facility?

Mr. Bevins: The position is that the Government are not yet convinced of the need for a Post Office giro in the long term. Certain developments are taking place over a very wide field, as the hon. Member knows, and we shall continue to


examine the public need for a giro in the Post Office.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling amongst the staff associations and other people outside that the banking interests are getting on very quickly with this matter? Why, therefore, are we allowing them to have an unfair advantage over the Post Office, which would be the ideal agency for this type of system?

Mr. Bevins: It is true that joint stock banks have made some progress in this. One of the Government's considerations is that it might not be wise to duplicate systems.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Savings Certificate Division (Transfer)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that, following his decision to transfer the Savings Certificate Division from Holloway to Dunham, none of the staff now engaged in London will be compulsorily transferred to Durham or will be subject to dismissal if they cannot agree to be transferred.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that there will be no compulsory transfer of staff to Durham from the Savings Certificate Division in London, and that staff not agreeing to be transferred will not be dismissed.

Miss Pike: Many posts will be filled by local recruitment at Durham, but a nucleus of experienced staff must move with the work. My right hon. Friend cannot go as far as the hon. Members suggest, but I can assure them that every effort will be made to meet this need with volunteers and to fill vacancies in other Government establishments in the London area from those who remain.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate the desirability of transferring this Department to Durham, but does not the hon. Lady agree that, in view of the unemployment situation in the North-East, it cannot be sensible to transfer a number of people

from London to the North-East against their will? Can she not say that there will not be any dismissals of existing London staff who find themselves unable, or who find it inconvenient, to go to the North-East?

Miss Pike: Only a very small number, a nucleus of about 300 of the staff, must go in order to maintain the efficiency of the Department. The transfer is to go on over a period of three or four years, but in order to maintain efficiency and train local people we must have a nucleus of trained people. However, to judge from the volunteers coming forward at the moment, I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be a very small number who may have to go against their wishes.

Mr. Lipton: Can the hon. Lady say what percentage of the total number of staff is this nucleus of 300 or 400 to which she has referred? Can she not at least give an undertaking that there will not be any avoidable hardship, especially in cases where houses have been bought on mortgage, or where the education of children has reached a critical stage? Can she give an assurance that those factors will be taken into account?

Miss Pike: The number of staff involved is more than 2,000, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every step will be taken to avoid hardship of any kind.

Office Facilities, Rainham

Mr. Burden: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequacy of the Post Office facilities in Rainham, Kent; and if he will provide a Crown building there.

Miss Pike: Since my hon. Friend last wrote to my right hon. Friend about this matter, Post Office facilities in Rainham have been substantially improved; and we do not think they are now inadequate. My right hon. Friend is sorry that he would not be justified at present in providing a Crown Post Office there.

Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend keep this matter under serious and constant consideration? Is she aware that the facilities are inadequate and that the population of the area is increasing quite quickly, so that even if the position is


marginal at the moment my right hon. Friend will soon have to reconsider it? I hope that he will do so satisfactorily.

Miss Pike: We will certainly watch the position, but I repeat that services at the moment for the district are quite adequate.

Mail (Northern Ireland)

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General what investigation he has made into the circumstances under which 300 tons of Christmas mail for Northern Ireland was mislaid by British Railways for several days at Heysham Harbour; and what were the results of his investigation.

Miss Pike: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that 300 tons of Christmas mail for Northern Ireland were not mislaid for several days at Heysham Harbour. Unfortunately some mail which should have been delivered before Christmas Day was held up en route and was not delivered until 27th December. Inquiries have failed to establish the precise cause of this delay, but my hon. Friend can be sure that we and the railways will do everything possible to avoid similar delays next Christmas.

Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that this sort of delay is typical of the parcel post to Northern Ireland throughout the year and causes considerable difficulty to our light industries in Northern Ireland?

Miss Pike: I can promise my hon. Friend that we are looking at this matter very carefully and that we have not been satisfied with the efficiency of the service to Northern Ireland and that we are having discussions with the railways to see how we can improve it.

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider employing some other organisation to carry parcels from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, in view of the standard of service given by British Railways.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend agrees that the standard of service is not all that it should be and we are working closely with the railways to bring about an improvement. A number of changes have recently been made and others are

pending. I am sure this offers the best prospect of obtaining what we all want, namely, a better service than we have at present.

Mr. Clark: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the container services now operating by road and special ferry give a far quicker service to Northern Ireland than do British Railways? Will she seriously consider giving the parcel post contract to them in the near future?

Miss Pike: At this point I can only assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at the matter. However, I agree with him that some type of container service may hold out the best hope of an efficient service.

Public House (Incident)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that two postmen in uniform were refused drinks in the lounge bar of the Lord Elgin public house, Maida Vale, London, and told that they would be served only in the public bar; and if, in order to safeguard postal workers from similar treatment in future, he will at the next Brewster Sessions oppose the renewal of the licence granted for these premises.

Mr. Bevins: I have seen Press reports of this incident, and if the reports are accurate, as they appear to be, I can only say that I deplore what occurred. I have, however, received no representations from the men or their trade union. I do not think it would be right for me to act on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman very much for the first part of his Reply, may I ask whether he does not consider that he has a moral responsibility to the postal workers and the honourable uniform that they wear on his behalf and on our behalf, and should he not therefore take the matter a little further and at least make some direct inquiries?

Mr. Bevins: I think that I have at least some small moral responsibility in a matter of this kind. As I say, I deplore it, but I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman's Question and my Answer would have had some effect. I


do not think that we ought to use the sledge hammer.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is not the nation indebted to postmen, policemen, roadmen, dustmen and so on, for the work they have put in during this rather chilly weather?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed, and I am sure that that sentiment is felt on both sides of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Television Companies

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Post-master-General if, in connection with his proposals for legislation, he will list all newspaper holdings in commercial television companies and all newspaper directors who are also directors of commercial television companies.

Mr. Bevins: The information requested in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question was published in paragraph 623 of the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting. The I.T.A. tell me that the position as shown there is virtually unchanged. The information in regard to Directors is very detailed and I am, therefore, publishing it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the Postmaster-General for his reply. In view of the widespread anxiety about three Press proprietors owning three out of every

Annex 1


Programme Company
Directors who are also Directors of newspapers (National, Provincial and Local)
Remarks


A.T.V
…
…
…
H. Cudlip
…
Daily Mirror Group






E. S. Birk
…
Daily Mirror Group






R. P. T. Gibson
…
The Financial News Ltd.








The Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd.








Westminster Press


S.T.V
…
…
…
R. Thomson
…
Thomson Newspapers






J. Coltart
…
Thomson Newspapers






C. N. McQueen
…
Thomson Newspapers






I. M. Stewart
…
Thomson Newspapers


T.W.W
…
…
…
Sir William Emsley Carr
…
News of the World Organisation








Barrow's Organisation






T. R. Jones
…
Barrow's Organisation






M. Chapman-Walker
…
News of the World Organisation






A. G. Jeans
…
Liverpool Daily Post &amp; Echo

four newspapers read in this country and about possible further take-overs, is it not a real threat to democracy to permit these people to have any interest at all in the even more influential—

Sir G. Nabarro: indicated dissent.

Mr. Manuel: What's your line?

Mr. Allaun: I do not know about other hon. Members, but I can hardly hear myself speak.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members making running commentaries during Question Time would recognise what it would mean to the House as a whole if everybody behaved in that way.

An Hon. Member: We would all get knighted.

Mr. Allaun: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), is it not a real threat to democracy if these newspaper owners are permitted to have any interest at all in television, which is the most influential of all the media? Why does the T.V. Bill ignore the Shawcross and Pilkington proposals, even about dominant control of television interests?

Mr. Bevins: I should have thought that that was a matter which could be appropriately debated on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Following is the information:




Programme Company
Directors who are also Directors of newspapers (National, Provincial and Local)
Remarks


Southern
…
B. H. Thomson
…
D. C. Thomson &amp; Co. Ltd. (Scottish Newspapers)




W. H. Thomson
…
D. C. Thomson &amp; Co. Ltd. (Scottish Newspapers)




D. B. Thomson
…
D. C. Thomson &amp; Co. Ltd. (Scottish Newspapers)




R. Geddes
…
Associated Newspapers




Hon. V. H. Harmsworth
…
Associated Newspapers


Anglia
…
W. O. Copeman
…
Various East Anglian Newspapers




L. P. Scott
…
Manchester Guardian






North News Ltd.


Ulster
…
O.W. Henderson
…
Belfast Newsletter Ltd.


Westward T.V
…
W. A. Hawkins
…
Various West Country Papers


Border T.V
…
J. L. Burgess
…
Cumberland Newspapers Ltd.




Sir John Muirhead
…
George Outram &amp; Co.—various Scottish Newspapers




J. I. Small
…
The Tweeddale Press


Grampian T.V
…
J. M. Milne
…
John Milne, The Central Press (Aberdeen) Ltd.




I. M. Tennant
…
Moray and Nairn Newspapers Co. Ltd.






Times Publishing Co. (this Company has no financial interests in any T.V. Company)


Wales (W. &amp; N.) Ltd.
…
E. L. Thomas
…
Woodalls Newspapers Ltd.


Channel T.V
…
A. G. Harrison
…
Local Channel Islands Newspapers




G. Le Gros Peck
…
Local Channel Islands Newspapers

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Chigwell, Epping and Ongar

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Postmaster-General what reduction has been made in the last year in the waiting list for telephones in the Chigwell urban district and Epping and Ongar rural district of Essex.

Mr. Bevins: During 1962 the waiting list in these areas has been reduced by 16 to 100. In that year, 1,903 telephones were installed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has done and what he will do—I hope—to reduce this waiting list will be widely welcomed in my constituency?

Mr. Bevins: We are putting new exchange and other equipment in my hon. Friend's constituency all the time.

Telephones (Increase)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can

now estimate what the increase in the number of telephones will be during the current financial year; and how this compares with the average annual rate of increase of 5 per cent. which he announced on 3rd July, 1962, was the basis of his planning.

Mr. Bevins: I estimate the increase in the number during the present financial year will be 310,000, an increase of 3·6 per cent. It is still my hope that we shall achieve an average increase of 5 per cent. over the next five years.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we are lagging behind that 5 per cent. when most other countries are exceeding the 5 per cent. which the right hon. Gentleman gave as his original project?

Mr. Bevins: If the hon. Member would care to refresh his memory, I think he would find that the 5 per cent. increase to which I referred was an average over a period of five years. The


percentage happens to be lower this year because, as we explained in the 1962 White Paper, the development of the trunk system and mechanisation have claimed a larger proportion of our financial resources.

School of Dancing (Calls)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Arthur Murray School of Dancing is using the telephone system indiscriminately to call individuals telling them that they have been awarded a free dancing lesson, and that, as a consequence, a number of individuals have been pressed into signing contracts for large sums of money when they have attended the school; and whether he will bring to an end this practice.

Mr. Bevins: I am advised that such a use of the telephone does not constitute an offence under the Post Office Act or a breach of the Telephone Regulations: in my view, it would not be appropriate for me to attempt to impose any restriction. As my hon. Friend will realise, the latter part of the Question is not within my province.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not my right hon. Friend think it rather unfortunate that when newspapers try to clean up their own advertising side and refuse this advertising his Department should facilitate this importuning of the public?

Mr. Bevins: That is a matter of opinion, but the fact of the matter is that I have no legal powers whatever to interfere in a matter of this sort.

White Telephones

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the additional manufacturing cost of a white telephone as compared with a black telephone and the additional cost charged to the subscriber.

Mr. Bevins: There is no difference in the manufacturing cost of black and white telephones. The additional charge to the subscriber is thirty shillings, plus the standard charge of thirty shillings if a special visit is necessary to change the instrument. This provides both a brake on the premature scrapping of existing instruments and a useful profit.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend really think that he can justify a differential charge of £3 for a white as against a black instrument when manufacturing costs are the same? Is not this a frightfully bad example to private enterprise?

Mr. Bevins: I am not sure that I can justify it, and I will gladly look at it again.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only does the subscriber have to pay £3 more, but that when he gets a white instrument it is not half as efficient as a black one?

Commonwealth Calls (Charges)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Postmaster General how it is intended to charge for telephone calls on the new Commonwealth cable.

Mr. Bevins: No change is proposed in the present charges to subscribers in this country for telephone calls to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. B. Harrison: May I take it that this welcome Reply means that there will be a uniform charge between the different capitals of the Commonwealth, whether a call is by cable or by radiotelephone?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that that necessarily follows, but I can say to my hon. Friend that, generally speaking, the cost of calls from the United Kingdom to Commonwealth countries is at present, and will remain, on the whole lower than the cost of calls in the opposite direction.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster General what additional revenue has accrued from local calls on subscriber trunk dialling exchanges as a result of the time limit on such calls.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in disguising the fact that with timed local calls on S.T.D. exchanges subscribers must inevitably pay more for their calls? If the right hon. Gentleman is charging 2d. for a three-minute call and the subscriber makes a four-minute call, he has to pay 4d., which is more than he pays on a non-S.T.D. exchange.

Mr. Bevins: I hate to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but the fact of the matter is that the average cost of a local call before S.T.D. was 2.85d., whereas with S.T.D. it is 2.80d.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Medical Aid to Developing Countries (Report)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation of the Porritt Working Party that his Department should prepare a code for terms of medical appointments overseas.

The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I accept the recommendation in the Report and my Department is preparing a code.

Mr. Boyden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be ready? Surely this is a simple administrative measure? The Ministry of Education has already prepared a similar code for education. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a date when it will be ready and say what steps will be taken to make it well publicised?

Mr. Vosper: This is quite a simple operation, but I am anxious to publish the decisions from the whole of the Porritt Report together. This has required considerable discussions which are now nearly complete, and I hope to make a statement in a few weeks.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what funds he has made available, and what steps he has taken, to enable senior medical visitors to Commonwealth countries to spend short periods in teaching duties on the lines recommended by the Porritt Working Party on Medical Aid to the Developing Countries.

Mr. Vosper: Money is already available for this purpose, although the sum is not specified. This and other recommendations of the Porritt Working Party have been taken into account in formulating my Department's estimates for 1963–64. I am bringing the Report of the Working Party to the notice of overseas Governments.

Mr. Boyden: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the Porritt Report, but can he be more explicit about this particular item? Surely the Working Party laid particular stress on this? Can the right hon. Gentleman give some approximate idea of how much will be available?

Mr. Vosper: That would be difficult, because it depends on the requests made by overseas Governments. No new machinery is necessary, but, regarding these recommendations, I have stated that they were taken into account when framing the estimates for 1963–64. Perhaps I could take this opportunity of thanking Sir Arthur Porritt and his Working Party for this Report.

Northern Rhodesia (African Administrative Training)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what arrangements he has now made for training Africans from Northern Rhodesia in administration.

Mr. Vosper: My Department regularly arranges training in administration in this country for Africans from Northern Rhodesia at the request of the Northern Rhodesia Government. Consultations are in progress about meeting the new needs in the future. I am sending the hon. Member particulars of the range of training now being provided here.

Mr. Healey: In view of the probability that Northern Rhodesia will be achieving independence under an African Government within the next year or two, will the right hon. Gentleman press on with this matter, because there is at the present time a very serious shortage of Africans trained in administration in the territory?

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir, but my responsibilities are to provide the facilities and meet the requests of the Northern Rhodesia Government. If they request more training facilities here, or assistance in Northern Rhodesia, I shall do my best to meet them.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether he is using to the full the courses in administration previously established by the Colonial Office, such as that at the Co-operative College at Stanford Hall for training people in co-operative administration?

Mr. Vosper: That is a rather separate question, and I need notice of it, but generally speaking, if we get requests for them or similar courses, we do use them.

Mr. Dugdale: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any requests from Southern Rhodesia, and has he been able to meet them?

Mr. Vosper: I need notice of that question.

United Nations (Funds)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what sums have been pledged by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations Expanded Technical Assistance Programme and to the Special Fund for 1963; and what were the comparable figures for 1962.

Mr. Vosper: Subject to Parliamentary approval Her Majesty's Government have pledged contributions for 1963 to these programmes of the sterling equivalent of $6·25 million to the Special Fund, and $3·75 million to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance. The comparable figures for 1962 were $5 million and $3 million, respectively.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not disappointing that, although the Technical Assistance Board aimed at an overall sum of 150 million dollars this year, the total pledged is only 116 million dollars? Does it not mean that a number of countries, including ourselves, have failed to live up to the United Nations resolution with regard to the Development Decade? Can the Government, together with other Governments, have another look at this to try to get a higher target pledged for this year?

Mr. Vosper: I do not consider that this is disappointing. This is a 25 per cent. increase on the sum provided for the current year. I believe that it is giving encouragement to other members concerned, and we are also meeting the increased demand for bilateral technical assistance. This being the case, a 25 per cent. increase over the current year seems to me to be a fairly reasonable contribution.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While appreciating that this is a 25 per cent. increase, in view of the fact that this is the year

when the Freedom from Hunger Campaign will be going on, do not the Government consider that they ought now to be extra generous and give an example to other nations?

Mr. Vosper: I had regard to that when making the 25 per cent. increase, and, as I said, we have also been requested to make increases in other forms of technical assistance, which I hope to carry out.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As my right hon. Friend has given the figure of our contribution in dollars, may I presume that in fact our contribution will be made in sterling and that expenditure resulting from our contribution will be made in the sterling area?

Mr. Vosper: That is rather a complicated point, but one receives back a considerable contribution in respect of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, we regard our contribution to the United Nations Fund as being a good one for multilateral technical assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Public Conveniences (Turnstiles)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what action he is taking following the refusal of the Llandudno local authority to remove the turnstiles from its public conveniences;
(2) what action he intends to take to secure the removal of the turnstile from the public convenience on the south foreshore at Scarborough following the trapping of a six-year-old girl in it on 2nd December.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My right hon. Friend is now considering the position of all the authorities who have so far declined to remove their turnstiles.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Member aware that it is time that we stopped treating this matter as a joke? Examples are increasingly coming to my attention of physical danger to elderly persons and to young children, as outlined by the incident at Scarborough. In view of the fact that the Minister promised that if


local authorities did not remove turnstiles voluntarily he would adopt compulsory measures, when is he going to report to the House on the compulsory action that he intends to take?

Mr. Corfield: I can assure the hon. Lady that we do not treat this matter as a joke, but I would also point out that even since I replied to her on 13lh November some progress has been made, in that the number of turnstiles removed or to be removed has risen to 458, which is 68 per cent. of the total—a rise of 8 per cent. My right hon. Friend certainly does not withdraw from the undertaking that he gave, and neither do I. At the same time, I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that the priority for Parliamentary time in respect of this matter cannot be very high at this date.

Mrs. Castle: Can the Minister reply to the second half of my supplementary question and tell us when he is going to make a statement to the House following the consideration which he has said that he is going to give to the matter?

Mr. Corfield: I cannot commit myself to a date, but I can say that it will be very soon—within a month.

Greater London Area (Electors)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what are the numbers of local government and Parliamentary electors, respectively, in the proposed Greater London area.

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the number of local government electors on the 1962 register is 5,596,133 and the number of Parliamentary electors 5,578,351.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rates and Rents

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to ease the additional burden which will be placed upon tenants of houses, when the provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act come into force, whose rents have increased owing to the decontrol introduced by recent Rent Acts

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the revaluation. I see no reason to think that this will place any additional burden on tenants of decontrolled houses generally.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister really saying that in his view the revaluation will not affect the amount of rates that any tenants have to pay? If he is not, is he aware that, owing to the vast number of people who have been affected by the Rent Acts, and whose rents have been exorbitantly increased, in all probability considerable hardship will be caused to them? What will he do in the event of such a situation arising?

Sir K. Joseph: I did not say that. Revaluation will affect tenants in various ways, depending on the relative movement of the value of their property in relation to other property, domestic and of all sorts. But the hon. Member was asking about decontrolled 'tenants. The rental values which are taken for the purpose of calculating rateable value are in terms of a free market and take no account of the restraint on those rents by a control order.

Sir B. Janner: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer does not carry the matter any further for those who will have to pay more in the way of rates in consequence of revaluation and who have already been charged excessive rentals owing to the fact that the Government have introduced Rent Acts which have removed controls? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about it if people are affected in that way?

Sir K. Joseph: The question is about rates, and the fact that tenancies have been decontrolled will make no difference.

Homeless Persons, Essex

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what are the latest figures of homeless persons in Essex; and what special measures have been taken recently by the county and other authorities.

Sir K. Joseph: I am informed that the Answer to the first part of the Question is 399 persons or 94 families. The Essex


County Council has closed an unsatisfactory hostel for 10 families at Leytonstone, opened a new unit for 25 families at Colchester and appointed two additional family case workers. The county borough councils of East and West Ham have also provided additional accommodation. More new houses are under construction in the county than at this time a year ago.

Public Investment

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what has been the annual amount in actual and real terms of public investment in housing in each year since 1951; and what percentage of the country's gross national product these represent.

Sir K. Joseph: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Year
Actual prices
Public investment in housing at constant 1958 prices


Public investment in housing
Gross national product
Column (2) as % of column 3


 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 (4)
 (5)



£m.
£m.
%
£m.


1951
317
12,926
2·5
384


1952
393
13,987
2·8
434


1953
459
14,939
3·1
519


1954
419
15,847
2·6
478


1955
353
16,857
2·1
380


1956
336
18,373
1·8
344


1957
315
19,392
1·6
319


1958
269
20,284
1·3
269


1959
265
21,149
1·3
270


1960
273
22,438
1·2
276


1961
283
23,701
1·2
277


All figures relate to the United Kingdom.

Local Authority Programmes

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proposals he has for announcing the allocations of local authority housing programmes for more than a year in advance.

Sir K. Joseph: It is a matter for the local authorities in the first place to submit their proposals to me. In the areas with the most serious slum clear-

Mr. Irving: Is the Minister aware that when we see the figures they will undoubtedly tell us that we are making no bigger effort in housing than we were ten years ago, and that in local authority housing we are making a much reduced effort? In view of the great urgency of this matter at the moment—the great need for housing, and the fact that many other European countries are making a bigger investment in housing; Western Germany built 575,000 houses in 1961—how can the Minister justify his failure to increase and expand the housing programme?

Sir K. Joseph: The figures for which the hon. Member has asked reflect a large increase in the gross national product and a large increase in spending on construction of other sorts than dwellings. But I cordially agree that we need to build more dwellings, and the Government's proposals will be made shortly.

Following is the information:

ance problems I am willing to agree programmes for up to five years ahead. In other areas I am prepared to consider forward programmes adapted to local needs and circumstances.

Mr. Irving: Is the Minister aware that in all areas it would greatly assist local authority planning if this were done—in facilitating tendering and making possible larger contracts and the continuity of work? This would make a contribution towards reducing costs. Will not the Minister consider this matter again?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot believe that local authorities would welcome dictation from me as to the number of houses they should build. The initiative is the other way round; they tell me what they wish to build, and I am encouraging them at the moment to make longer programmes in that regard.

Interest Rates (Sunderland)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the communication of the council of the county borough of Sunderland calling for requisite measures at an early date, to fix interest rates at a substantially lower level, so as to reduce rents.

Sir K. Joseph: I have told the Council that the Government do not accept that housing loans should be made available at less than the prevailing rate of in barest. I have also said that, provided subsidies go to those in need, it should be possible to continue building without having to charge rents in excess of what tenants can reasonably be expected to pay.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that the burden of interest rates has increased by £1 million since 1951 and that this is a very heavy burden upon Sunderland? In view of the present increasing unemployment in Sunderland, will he discuss this problem with Lord Hailsham and see whether it is possible to arrange for the provision of more favourable interest rates for those authorities, such as Sunderland, which are facing difficulties?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the rate of interest is the difficulty here. The average rent in Sunderland is 23s. 8d. a week, and even in the conditions prevailing in that part of the country that does not seem to me to be a crippling level of rent.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister keep an open mind on this matter? Is he aware that some Federal aid for housing in the United States takes the form of favourable rates of interest? There is nothing administratively impossible about this, and it would be a great help to many local authorities.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that I have ever said that it would be administratively impossible, but I have said that the subsidy, the differential rent scheme and the rent rebate scheme should be the principal instruments by which the poorer people are enabled to have decent housing.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister at any rate try to appear to be a little less doctrinaire and tell the House that he is willing to discuss this matter with Lord Hailsham?

Sir K. Joseph: I am willing to discuss the question of Sunderland rents with Lord Hailsham, but I do not want to mislead the House and give the impression that there is any special interest rate for housing in the wind.

Factory-built Houses

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what study is being undertaken of the progress made in factory-built houses in the United States of America, having regard to the fact that one in six of houses erected there are made of manufactured components.

Sir K. Joseph: My Department keeps in touch with progress in this field in the United States of America, as in other countries. The methods of construction used for most factory-built houses there are similar to those used in this country for caravans and mobile homes. The evidence we have indicates that these methods are more expensive than traditional methods in this country. One of our main objectives is to develop house building systems which are competitive in cost with traditional, while achieving the benefits of industrialisation.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend agree that when factory-built houses are constructed on a large scale, as in America, experience shows that they are much cheaper and are erected more quickly than traditional houses? Is it not also the case that the public in America has a wider choice of architect-designed houses than is possible with traditional houses? Might not that experience be valuable in this country?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said, but America is rich in land and we axe not. Very much of America's housing development is at a far lower density than we could afford, and many of these houses, if packed close together, would develop a high fire risk which we could not tolerate.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Prices and Costs

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for West Ham, North, can expect to receive the details of the answers to his Question on prices and costs; and when this is likely to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): Today.

TABLE I


Item
Percentage change since 1951
Notes


1961
1962


Purchasing power of £ sterling
- 24
- 27
Based on the consumers' price index.


Index of retail prices*
+ 41
+ 47



Registered unemployed
+ 34
+ 83



National production
+ 28
+ 27
Based on the gross domestic product at constant factor cost. 1962 figure relates to first half year, seasonally adjusted.


Terms of trade*
- 24
- 26
1962 figure relates to first 11 months.


Company taxation
+ 10
n.a.
United Kingdom taxes paid by companies and public corporations, after allowance for income tax deducted from payments of dividends and interest.


Income tax and surtax
+ 92
n.a.
Payments by persons and unincorporated businesses.


Expenditure on local authority houses
- 11
- 4
1962 figure relates to first half year.


Expenditure on private house building
+ 810
+ 816
1962 figure relates to first half year.


National Insurance benefits


These changes are based on the rates applicable in October, 1951


Unemployment or sickness





Single person
+ 121
+ 121



Married couple
+ 120
+ 120



Retirement pension





Single person
+ 92
+ 92



Married couple
+ 85
+ 85



National Insurance and Health contributions


These changes are based on the rates applicable in October, 1951.


Adult male employee
+ 108
+ 108
These changes are based on the flat rate contributions for persons not contracted out of the graduated pensions scheme compared with the rates payable in October, 1951.


Adult female employee
+ 117
+ 117


Adult male employee
+ 139
+ 139
These changes are based on the flat rate contributions for persons "contracted out" of the graduated pensions scheme.


Adult female employee
+ 138
+ 138


* For each of these items it has been necessary to link series with different base dates and different weighting systems. The movements over the whole period are therefore only approximate.

Mr. Lewis: Why was it that before Christmas, in answer to a Question, I was given a promise that the figures would be published? Why has it taken until now for the figures to be given in HANSARD? Why could they not have been given earlier?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave the undertaking that the necessary figures would be published, and they are being published today. What has happened is, I think, perfectly reasonable. The hon. Gentleman's Question appeared on the Order Paper on Saturday, 15th December. This left only three working days to provide an Answer which, as he will see, contains more than 50 figures covering more than 15 separate topics.

Following are the details:

Item
Percentage change since 1951
Notes


1961
1962


Coal production
- 15
- 11



Purchase tax
+ 51
+ 65
Based on receipts by H.M. Customs &amp; Excise.


Radio and television licence duty
+ 178
n.a.
Receipts by the Post Office. Based on figures for financial years.


Income from rent
+ 149
n.a.
Rental income from all types of property after deducting the cost of repairs and other expenses but before allowing for derecpiation. The imputed income from owner-occupied property is included.


Rates
+ 126
n.a.
Receipts by local authorities.

TABLE II


Bank rate


8th November, 1951
…
…
…
…
…
…
2½ per cent.


26th April, 1962
…
…
…
…
…
…
4½ per cent.

8th November, 1951
8th December, 1962


Public Works Loan Board Interest rates


Loans due for repayment in


Not more than 5 years
…
…
2
5⅞


More than 5 years but not more than 15 years
…
…
3
5⅞


More than 15 years but not more than 30 years
…
…
3¾
5⅞


More than 30 years
…
…
3¾
5⅞

Balance of payments current account


1951
…
…
…
…
…
…
deficit of £365 million


1961
…
…
…
…
…
…
deficit of £77 million


1962 (first nine months)
…
…
…
…
…
…
surplus of £51 million

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Distribution of Industry

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in considering the desirability of starting new industries in areas of unemployment, he regards as areas needing such industries those wherein comparatively little unemployment is shown in the returns because the inhabitants are in work in other areas, often distant from their homes, to which they have to go to find work owing to the absence of employment near their homes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): In determining what is the proper distribution of industry my right hon. Friend takes into account all relevant considerations including the local pattern of travel to work.

Mr. Mallalieu: With regard to Barton-on-Humber in my constituency, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken into account the fact that a very high proportion of the working population has to make a very difficult journey to obtain work over a dozen miles away at Scunthorpe, and that the people involved would far rather work at home if they could? Is he aware that in Scunthorpe there is a high rate of employment but that it is almost entirely concentrated on heavy industry, and that it is extremely desirable that there should be some form of light industry for the employment of woman? Have these things been taken into account in regard to the places which I have mentioned?

Mr. Price: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that these matters are taken into account and are very much in the mind of myself and of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. S. Silverman: When the hon. Gentleman says that all relevant factors are taken into account, is he saying to the House that the Board of Trade takes into account the condition of the population, the official figures of the totally unemployed, all married women who do not appear in those figures, all those who, for long periods, work only part-time, and also the drift of the population from a district because employment cannot be found there? If all these factors are taken into consideration, can the hon. Gentleman explain why northeast Lancashire has not been scheduled under the Local Employment Act?

Mr. Price: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put a direct Question about north-east Lancashire, I shall answer it. Regarding the earlier part of his supplementary question, these factors are taken into consideration, but the relevant weighting given to them will vary from one case to the next. Under the Local Employment Act, my Department is particularly concerned with actual unemployment and not unemployment which is largely notional because people have moved to other parts of the country.

Mr. Silverman: When he says that all these matters are taken into account, is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has written to the Joint Committee in north-east Lancashire stating that they are not taken into account and that this district is not scheduled under the Act for that reason?

Mr. Price: I am unable in a general answer to comment on specific cases. If the hon. Member cares to put down a Question about north-east Lancashire, I shall answer it.

Tees-side

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken in consultation with other Departments to secure the placing of Government contracts in the Tees-side area, in view of the high level of unemployment there.

Mr. D. Price: The contract preference schemes, operated by the Government Purchasing Departments, are available

only to firms in the development districts. As the Tees-side area is not one of those, firms there cannot benefit from them.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment figure in the area is higher than in some of the development districts? For this reason, could not it receive special consideration?

Mr. Price: I can assure the right hon. Member that I am acutely aware of that point. It is being given active consideration.

Dr. Bray: Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he is taking steps to schedule Tees-side as a development district?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be most improper to make any general indication of the thoughts of my right hon. Friend and myself in advance of any announcement.

Sir C. Osborne: Since 5 million jobs depend, directly or indirectly, on our exports, and since no Government can compel the foreigner to buy our exports, will not my hon. Friend be honest with both sides of the House and say that no Government can guarantee full employment in every part of the country?

Mr. Price: There is great wisdom in what my hon. Friend says. Nevertheless, within the general context of our hopes regarding exports, it is the intention of the Government to ensure, so far as it is possible, that employment is spread evenly throughout the country.

Mr. S. Silverman: I wish to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall raise the matter again at an early opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD ADVOCATE

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Lord Advocate from the Members of the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I will bear the hon. and learned Member's suggestion in mind when next the Office falls vacant.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the absence from either House of Parliament of the customary and traditional Law Officer for Scotland deprives the people of Scotland of much-needed law reforms authoritatively recommended by such bodies as the Mackintosh Committee and by the legal profession in Scotland? Is he aware that this breach of public duty is much resented by the people of Scotland and that it will encourage them to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of the opportunity to bring a Scottish lawyer into this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman say What steps he is taking to right these wrongs which have been inflicted on Scotland?

The Prime Minister: This is, of course, an inconvenience, but it has happened before.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT KENNEDY (TALKS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his conversations with President Kennedy.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks with President Kennedy.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister (1) how much time he spent at his Bahamas meetings with President Kennedy discussing proposals for the settlement of world problems and the reduction of tension; and what new proposals Her Majesty's Government will put forward as a result;
(2) to what extent in his discussions with President Kennedy he considered proposals for disengagement in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Mr. Bence: asked the Prime Minister what representation he made to the President of the United States at his recent meeting, respecting the adverse effect on British shipbuilding and merchant shipping, of American navigation policies.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his conversations with President Kennedy.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the agreement reached with President Kennedy, as described in the White Paper, Bahamas Meetings, Command Paper No. 1915 of December, 1962, ensure the continued existence of an independent nuclear deterrent in British control; and under what circumstances such a deterrent would be used.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with the President of the United States; and if the data on which they based their review of the nuclear test treaty negotiations included an estimate of the number of new cases of genetic damage and of bone cancer and leukaemia likely to have been caused by the latest series of British, American, and Soviet tests.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what proposals were made during his talks with President Kennedy in the Bahamas regarding the maintenance of the credibility of the British deterrent during the period between the obsolescence of the V-bomber force in or about 1965 and the coming into operational service of the Polaris submarine fleet in or about 1970.

The Prime Minister: I would refer right hon. and hon. Members to the joint communiqué and statement issued after my talks with President Kennedy last month and subsequently published as a White Paper.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his agreement with President Kennedy has offended President de Gaulle and that now President de Gaulle has offended the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that the British public is also becoming very offended about what is happening? Is not it about time the Government stood on their own feet without regard to what is said by President Kennedy and President de Gaulle?

The Prime Minister: I understand that a debate has been arranged for 31st January. These questions are of great importance and some complexity, and I think that it would be more convenient for me to deal with them in the debate.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister say whether we are committed irrevocably to the Polaris agreement, or whether we can get out of it, as it is going to cost £500 million and will strengthen neither ourselves nor the West?

The Prime Minister: I do not, of course, accept all these figures, and I think it would be better that they be debated, as we are to have a debate, on 31st January.

Mr. Swingler: Leaving aside the Skybolt and Polaris scandals, which we shall discuss separately, is the Prime Minister aware that the White Paper does not mention a single proposal which he put to the President, or agreed with President Kennedy, for the improvement of international relations? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question, which is whether he did agree with the President about disarmament, a nuclear-free zone, or about Berlin, or about bringing China into the United Nations, or any such proposal at all? What effective move was made to improve international relations?

The Prime Minister: On one matter which we discussed there has been an advance, and I am glad that it is so. That is on the question of nuclear tests, where a rather more hopeful situation has now developed.

Mr. Bence: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether my Question No. 8 was included in the list which the right hon. Gentleman is answering together?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, Question No. 8, but not Question No. 9.

Mr. Bence: Did the Prime Minister bring to the notice of President Kennedy that American policies, which are quite out of keeping with international practice, are having an adverse effect upon the shipbuilding and merchant shipping in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the defence of British shipbuilding and our Merchant Marine is as important as any other part of the defence of Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: We have, of course, discussed this on several occasions, and I hope that some advance has been made.

Mr. Allaun: Do not these talks finally establish that, compared with the Big Two, Britain is no longer a great military Power and can achieve true greatness only by giving a lead for peace? If that is so, how can we discourage others from having nuclear arms when we insist on having Polaris and Blue Steel ourselves?

The Prime Minister: It is those aspects both of a multilateral character and of N.A.T.O. policies which are, I think, valuable in that connection.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the White Paper hints at the possible use by Britain of our own independent nuclear deterrent in our own vital national interests? Can the Prime Minister, in a very short phrase, name one of those vital national interests on which we might use our own independent nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister: The right of any sovereign country to use any of its arms must in the last resort rest with the Government of the day.

Mr. Driberg: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to answer the second part of my Question No. 12 which, in spite of his Answer today, was not included in the communiqué?

The Prime Minister: I did refer to these developments. Although we have often had hopes before, I am hopeful that perhaps on this occasion we may make some real advance to the solution of the problem of nuclear tests.

Mr. Driberg: While agreeing that now there is more hope, partly because of Mr. Khrushchev's latest concession on inspection, may I ask if the Prime Minister does not realise that this Question asks specifically about the data on which the review of these matters was based?

The Prime Minister: There has been an immense volume of scientific research on these matters. I could not offhand give the details of it.

Mr. Warbey: In regard to the gap in the credibility of the British deterrent, since this gap will start some time in the next two or three years and then for several years we shall have to depend on the decency of Mr. Khrushchev not to single us out for


attack, what is the point of trying to provide for it in eight or nine years' time?

The Prime Minister: That question seems more for the future and can be more conveniently dealt with in debate.

Mr. H. Wilson: While noting that there is to be a debate next week, may I ask the Prime Minister to take it from us that we regard the Command Paper to which he referred as profoundly unsatisfactory, and will make that clear in the debate? If the debate is to cover purely the defence aspect, may I ask whether he or one of his right hon. Friends intend to make an immediate statement on the disarmament issue, which is urgent and not unhopeful, on Berlin, and other questions which we hope he discussed with the President?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the form of debate is always discussed. Perhaps the right hon. Member will see when the Motion is on the Order Paper. We thought on this occasion it was the wish of the House that we should concentrate on the defence aspect.

Mr. Wilson: While that is probably the wish of the entire House, will not the Prime Minister take an early opportunity of making a statement on his talks with the President on disarmament—all the more urgent in the light of the resumption of the talks and the statement by Mr. Khrushchev—and also on the position about Berlin?

The Prime Minister: I shall take that into account, but I think the right hon. Member will agree that it has rather been our experience that if we tried to widen the debate too much to cover whole fields of foreign policy and disarmament as well as defence the debate is apt to be less valuable than if it is concentrated on one major subject.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: To what extent will the permanence of the Bahamas Agreement depend on what may be said in the House in the debate? Would my right hon. Friend consider perhaps talking to the French again before it is made final?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the carrying out of an agreement by any Government depends on the ability of that Government to have the support of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 9. Mr. Bence.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. What about Question No. 3?

Mr. Speaker: I beg the pardon of hon. Members. I confused myself with that string of supplementaries. I ask the forgiveness of the House. Mr. Wyatt.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (TALKS)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks with President de Gaulle.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the communique issued after my talks with President de Gaulle last month and to my subsequent public statements.

Mr. Wyatt: In view of President de Gaulle's current attitude towards our application to join the Common Market, would the Prime Minister consider convening a conference of the heads of all the six member countries—even if President de Gaulle declines to come—in order to consider what we should now do and what Europe wants us to do, because this matter ought not to be allowed to peter out at the eggs and bacon level?

The Prime Minister: The situation at present is that the meeting will be resumed on Monday next in Brussels. I think we must wait and see the result of that meeting.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the Prime Minister say why the declaration of President de Gaulle's attitude to Britain's attempt to get into the Common Market came as such a shock to the Government when it was previously known to everybody else?

The Prime Minister: It was because I assumed, and I think we had the right to assume both from the communiqué issued at that and at one of our previous meetings, that this matter was one for negotiation. Had it been a matter of principle that one of the Six did not wish us to join, in principle one would have thought that no one


would wish to waste the time of all the Ministers concerned in a very long negotiation.

Mr. Thorpe: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is a very simple case of President de Gaulle having changed his mind on the issue just as the Prime Minister has?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite so sure of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-EAST

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now reply in detail to the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth and others for creating employment in the North-East.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends responsible have sent replies to detailed proposals which my hon. Friends have put forward.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of most people in the north of England of the appointment of Lord Hailsham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—to co-ordinate the effort to bring permanent employment to the North-East Coast? Will my right hon. Friend also accept our thanks for the fact that the Prime Minister has acted so quickly in response—[Interruption.]? Will my right hon. Friend also accept our thanks for having acted so quickly on the major recommendation which was made by the Northern Conservative Group when it came to see my right hon. Friend just before the Recess? Will he kindly tell hon. Members opposite that I am not in the least interested in their views, but I am grateful to my Government for their action?

The Prime Minister: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for that very gracious tribute.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. DIEFENBAKER (TALKS)

Mr. Bence: asked the Prime Minister what representation he made to Mr. Diefenbaker at his recent meeting respecting the adverse effect on British shipping of Canadian maritime policy.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the joint communique issued after my talks with Mr. Diefenbaker and subsequently published as a White Paper.

Mr. Bence: There is no mention of any attempt by the right hon. Gentleman to bring to the notice of the Canadian Government that their maritime laws respecting the Great Lakes are having a very adverse effect on British shipping in that quarter. It is not conducive to Commonwealth unity if the Prime Minister does not represent the best interests of British merchant shipping to fellow Dominions.

The Prime Minister: I did not wish to go outside the communiqué, but this particular question has been discussed between the two Governments for some time. While we recognise the Canadian Government's right, I must frankly say that we deplore this decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Dr. Bray: asked the Prime Minister who will answer for the Government in the House of Commons on sport, the North-East, and other matters within the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister who will reply to Questions in the House of Commons relating to the work of the Minister for Science for the North-East Coast.

The Prime Minister: In general, Questions on the local problems of the North-East will be answered by the Ministers responsible, but in so far as any Questions fall within the special responsibilities of my noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council, they will be answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science.
Questions on sport which fall within the responsibilities of my noble Friend will be answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education.

Dr. Bray: Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who represent the North-East on this side of the House are anxious to do their utmost to enable Lord Hailsham to do whatever possible in the lifetime of this Government, but that we are severely handicapped by his being at arm's length in another place? We very much need a more powerful spokesman for the North-East in this House.

The Prime Minister: We shall see how this works out. I think a large number of Questions, as normally, will go to individual Ministers, and I am sure of the capacity of my hon. Friends to answer Questions on behalf of my noble Friend. Some of the larger issues will be matters for debate in which, of course, other Ministers will take part.

Dame Irene Ward: After we have had an experimental period of the proposal which my right hon. Friend has put forward, if it has not worked very satisfactorily may we then have a debate on the matter to see whether we can get everything brought up to date and get everything done which we wish to see done on the North-East Coast? [HON. MEMBERS: "Don't sob."] I do not sob. I just talk.

The Prime Minister: I will consider that suggestion.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday in Newcastle the President of the Board of Trade said we should not expect too much from the appointment of Lord Hailsham? Does this represent the view of the Government as a whole?

The Prime Minister: We should never expect too much, but the great thing is to get it.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is a ludicrous anachronism to have Ministers appointed in another place?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I asked my noble Friend to accept this because I thought that he had just the qualities which were needed both in the locality and here in London.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the real object of this appointment to secure full employment at least for the Minister for Science?

The Prime Minister: There may come a day when the hon. Member will take a more generous view of affairs, but I doubt it.

MR. HUGH GAITSKELL (TRIBUTES)

3.33 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
It has been our custom that tributes to the memory of a distinguished figure in our parliamentary and political life should be made at this time, after Questions and before proceeding to other business. I have inquired into the precedents, and I find that it has been our tradition to adjourn the House after the speeches only in the event of the death of a former Prime Minister. In the case of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, whose death took place during the war, the urgency of some necessary business made it impossible to follow this practice. But in every other case it has been applied.
However, I have felt that in matters of this kind precedents should be regarded as a general guide and not as rules to be adhered to pedantically or slavishly. In this case, where we have to mourn the loss of the Leader of the Opposition of the day, I felt that it would be in conformity with the general wish of the House that we should proceed no further with our business when our tributes are completed. It is for that reason that I formally move this Motion.
During the last few days much has been written and spoken in praise of Hugh Gaitskell by friends, admirers, political supporters and opponents in this country. Equally striking has been the great number of tributes which have come from Commonwealth and foreign countries all over the world. These have been widely reported in the Press and have reached a large number of listeners through the radio and television circuits.
Today, we shall speak of him as a parliamentary colleague in the more intimate circles of the House of Commons, where we have all lived and worked together for so many years. The House will, therefore, not expect me to give any comprehensive review or to dwell at any length on the story of his life and achievements, still less at this moment of time to assess his place in history. I would only recall how


rapid and spectacular was his rise in Parliament. From a private Member, in 1945, he passed through several offices to become Chancellor of the Exchequer only five years later. He was elected Leader of the Opposition in 1955, ten years after entering the House of Commons. This, I think, is a unique record.
What greater opportunities might have come to him in the future nobody can tell, but it is abundantly clear that he had proved himself worthy and capable of undertaking whatever responsibilities might have been pressed upon him, or whatever burden he might have been called upon to shoulder.
Today, we meet as fellow members and colleagues in the House of Commons. Others have spoken, and will be able to speak, about him as a party leader or a political thinker. I would venture to say a few words about him, first, as a Parliamentarian and, secondly, as a man. As a Parliamentarian he had gifts of a very remarkable character, quite equal to those of the great figures of the past. He had a rare power of lucid exposition even of the most complicated and difficult problems, and yet this did not detract from his capacity to develop a rhetorical and emotional appeal of a very high order. He therefore combined what is not common—two methods of approach to an issue, either of which separately can be very effective, but which, when brought together, can be of outstanding authority and power. These were the instruments, strong and versatile, at his disposal.
What of the arena in which he had to use them? There is, I suppose, no position more difficult and in some ways more unrewarding than that of a Leader of an Opposition—to criticise, to find fault, and, at the same time, of course, to develop his own proposals and policies, without the power to implement them. It is in a sense unrewarding, because any man who is conscious of administrative capacity and the desire to operate his own plans must feel all the time a sense of frustration.
Equally, under our almost unique system of government the Leader of an Opposition has a very special responsibility to Parliament and to the nation. At moments of danger, moments

especially of foreign dangers, and particularly also in matters affecting the security and safety of the realm, while he remains a critic he must in a sense be a partner and even a buttress of the Government to which he is opposed. This dual responsibility he must discharge with fidelity.
I feel sure that the House will agree that in all these respects Hugh Gaitskell carried out his difficult duties effectively and honourably. As a debater he was formidable. As a questioner, he would press his point to the full, but never unfairly. To the ordinary conduct of our daily business he brought always courtesy and urbanity as well as a great sense of the traditions of the House. He was, I repeat, a notable Parliamentarian of increasing strength and stature year by year. Had he lived, I feel sure that he would have taken his place in the ranks of some of our greatest figures.
All this refers to the outward and perhaps rather formal aspects of Parliamentary life. I should like to say a few words about another aspect of his character and his special contribution as a man. He was inspired by deep human sympathies. He was probably led, I would imagine, into politics not so much by ambition as by a genuine desire to benefit the conditions of his fellow men. I remember reading a declaration of his faith some years ago which struck me as moving because of its sincerity. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the political policies of which he was an active promoter, it would be a hard man who did not sympathise with the motives which impelled him.
The occasion on which he showed his deepest feeling was when, rightly or wrongly, he believed mat he was attacking something where questions of deep principle were involved, or where an act of injustice had been committed. At the same time, in daily contact with his fellow men he was an attractive companion, respected and admired by all. He commanded deep devotion from his more intimate friends and colleagues.
We therefore mourn today a man of quite outstanding parts, clearly destined, had he been spared, to play an ever-increasing role in the world of affairs. We mourn, also, a colleague who was a good and loyal Parliamentarian in the


best sense of the word. He was so considerable a figure among us that his sudden and unexpected removal makes it difficult even now to realise that he is no longer with us. To his memory we pay our tribute. To his wife and family we offer our respectful sympathy.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister and to ask him to accept from us and from me personally our very great appreciation not only of his action in bringing this Motion to us today, but of the very great help that he gave to me personally and all of us at times last week when the crisis of Hugh Gaitskell's illness was very worrying indeed.
The House will readily understand that this is for me a peculiarly difficult and emotional occasion. I had worked with Hugh Gaitskell over a number of years, latterly, as the House knows, as his deputy, and closely on some issues for a long while before that. He and I shared many critical moments and many dramatic occasions, some exhilarating and some, it is only fair to say, markedly less so.
It is inevitable that during the course of an experience like that we should have forged a friendship all the tighter for its never having been formal and all the closer because we ourselves were so dissimilar. Somehow, we instinctively seemed to understand each other's moods. We could almost unfailingly predict each other's reactions. There was never any protocol between us, nor any need for reserve. What either of us thought had to be said to the other was said and was accepted, and he always paid me the tremendous compliment of insisting on a collective sense of leadership.
I find it very hard to pay today the tribute which I should. But this is more than a personal occasion and, clearly, much more than a party occasion. We mark, as the Prime Minister has so graciously said, the passing of one of the great national figures of our time. His claim to be considered that does not seem to me to rest perhaps on the usual judgments or the usual achievements

that are required. The Prime Minister has spoken of his capacity for expression, presentation and argument. But I think that it would be accepted that he was not an orator in the way that, traditionally, oratory has come to be judged, although those who heard him in the House and those of us who heard him on two notable occasions in party conferences at Scarborough and Brighton, whether we agreed with him or not, will know that he could be heard to no mean effect.
Equally, he had never held high office in the State for long periods. He had, as the Prime Minister said, become the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a very early stage in his life. But the fortunes of political war prevented him from being able to go on from there during the last ten years.
I think that it is the measure of Hugh Gaitskell's stature and the success of his life that, even though these things be true, his loss is felt today by the entire nation and by most of the world in a way, as they have shown, even more deeply than has been the case with some of the great figures of the past of Whom, perhaps, it could be said that they had those two criteria in rather greater measure. We have had letters, telegrams, gifts and offers of help right throughout his illness literally from every group, every stratum of our society at home, and, equally literally, from the major statesmen of every country in the world.
The reasons for Hugh Gaitskell's stature and the regard in which he was held lie, I think, partly in his own personal qualities, about which we have spoken and will speak, but partly, if the House will permit me to say this, in the nature of the task which he undertook in the Labour Party, a task Which was seen, whether in our party or outside, to be so courageous and so vital that the accomplishment of it captured the imagination of the nation irrespective of one's political alignments and views.
Come what may in the future, politically the impact of Hugh Gaitskell will always be seen very clearly etched from hereon on our party. Change of approach occurred in his time, and largely because of him. Changes of methods occurred in his time, and


largely because of him. A definition of unity of a real and not a spurious kind grew up in his time, and largely because of him and largely because of his refusal to eschew controversy and, equally, his refusal to allow it to affect the way in which colleagues, sometimes differing, nevertheless worked together.
Hugh Gaitskell's qualities have been repeatedly enumerated and I shall not try today to repeat or embellish them, for it is one of She more fascinating aspects of the man that after his death almost all the commentators who have spoken or written have chosen exactly the same qualities to mark in him. He was, I think, an outstanding example of a man who looked the same to his friends as to strangers, to his opponents as to his supporters. Whether one was glad of his qualities because one was fighting on the same side, or perhaps a little sorry that he had them when one was fighting on the other side, the fact remains that one saw the very same qualities each time.
This, of course, is the ultimate expression of the utter honesty of Hugh Gaitskell. This is not to suggest that he was, however, an unsophisticated man, or that he did not well understand the mechanics of party politics, and especially the rather complicated means by which the Labour movement works.
I can, perhaps, more than most, testify to the successful, but the always careful, way in which he made use of that understanding. It was that, plus his terrific, unshakeable determination, which stood us in such good stead through many a tough battle. Whereas most great political figures who, to attain the ends that they thought right, have had to use means which inescapably involve what are called party manœuvres, have in the end had their reputations sullied by it, the outstanding thing is that Hugh Gaitskell's reputation has not been marred in the least degree. This, I believe, was because the ends he sought were seen to be totally non-personal, because the issues he chose to fight on were felt to be so manifestly relevant and vital to our affairs, and because his sincerity and his devotion shone so brightly all the time.
Hugh Gaitskell had one asset, above all, which I deeply envied him. Incidentally, it also made arguing with him a nightmare. It was his superb clarity of thought and expression. The debate in his own mind proceeded in the most orderly, logical and clear progression. For that reason, he could become irritated and sometimes impatient with others whom he thought guilty of confused or woolly thinking or, worse, who he thought were uttering slogans or repeating principles, however hallowed, instead of meeting his arguments on the merits they deserved.
This, of course, had its awkward side. Hugh was such a giant among men in this respect that sometimes he failed to recognise the genuine limitations of others of us. I can think now of certainly one national major controversy in which he played a vital part not so long ago where he was utterly surprised and deeply distressed by the reaction of friends to something which he saw so clearly as the only possible logical course flowing so naturally from what had gone before.
The public picture of Hugh Gaitskell, however, is not, in my view, wholly right. He was sometimes pictured as though he were a cold man. This was partly due perhaps to that very precision of thought and speech that I have mentioned, partly, I think, to the fact that he was a shy man and certainly a very diffident man; but it was a hopelessly inaccurate picture. Those of us who were privileged to be close to him know that he was, in fact, the gayest and the warmest of companions and men to spend time with. To his associates he gave unstinting sympathetic support in all weathers. He never needed to know why one was in trouble. It was sufficient that you were his friend and his colleague and that you needed help. The only duty he ever saw then was to give help, sympathy and support, which he always did with the utmost tact and with complete steadfastness. I, for one, acknowledge an enormous duty to him in this respect which I shall never be able to discharge.
As we take our official Parliamentary leave of Hugh Gaitskell let us remember, as the Prime Minister reminded us, that he was not only a public figure. He was also a husband and a father, a member


of a very charming and very close-knit family. They must know that we have for them unlimited affection and that they will never lose their place in our hearts.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: No tragedy of recent years has struck us with the poignancy of Hugh Gaitskell's death. After a long climb his troubles seemed behind him and he was poised for an assault upon the highest office. He was well equipped to hold such office. His ability was conceded by all. So was his determination. No one doubted that he could pass the ultimate test of statesmanship—the taking of decisions under pressure. His courage, too, was proved again and again. Like Burke, he might have taken as his motto, "I shine in adversity".
Hugh Gaitskell could also claim, as Burke claimed, that he was not made for a minion or a tool, nor did he, in Burke's words, "follow the trade of winning the hearts by imposing on the understanding of the people". Indeed, he could not and would not confuse an issue. That was sometimes a handicap, but the honesty of purpose and the clarity of mind which sometimes put him at a disadvantage during the in-fighting of politics would have been of immense service to his country in high office.
Hugh Gaitskell had, of course, more than ability and courage and clarity of mind. He had that conviction without which these qualities are worth very little. It was not cold calculation which had originally involved him in Labour politics. How easy and safe for a man of his background and talents to pursue, say, an honourable career in the Civil Service. How difficult to break away, as he did over the General Strike, from the pressures from his own environment and the opinions of his Conservative friends. It was certainly not calculation of personal gain which persuaded him to fight the 1945 election against the advice of his doctors. If people think that politicians can take the sort of stand that Hugh Gaitskell took—not once, but again and again—against his background very often, against his friends sometimes, and always against the easy course, without great resources of heart as well as

of brain, they can know very little of what politics are about.
But anyone who knew Hugh Gaitskell even slightly does not need to study his career to be convinced of his virtues. One had only to meet him to recognise his attraction and his distinction. He retained even at the height of his troubles an air of innocence. He was genuinely astonished that attacks should be made upon him that he would never have dreamed of making upon anyone else. He had the best political manners of anyone I have known and they flowed from deep conviction and a thoroughly generous nature. He kept the level of political discussion very high.
So he has gone, joining that considerable band of British politicians who have left their mark upon our history without ever attaining the office of Prime Minister. He gives the lie to those who think that politics are concerned only with office. We shall miss him sadly; we shall all miss him.
Perhaps I might be allowed to say just a special word of sympathy to his colleagues, to his secretaries, and to all who worked with him in this building. His party has suffered a heavy loss, but it can surely be proud that such a man should have given such loyalty to it. But what is anyone's loss compared with that of his wife and his children, to whom, indeed, this must be a bleak winter? They have our deepest sympathy on this disaster, which has imposed loneliness on them so prematurely. All we can say—it is not very much—is that, while in Hugh Gaitskell's death there is all too much for tears, there can be nothing but inspiration from the story of his life.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

3.59 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), or perhaps I should say our right hon. Friend, the Father of the House, I am acting as his very inadequate deputy on this occasion. I also speak as the oldest inhabitant of these back benches. I should like, in doing so, to pay a very brief tribute to Hugh Gaitskell. I knew him a little better than many of my colleagues and, therefore, possibly I liked him more.
There were so many things in Hugh Gaitskell to admire: his consistent


courage—and how often he needed it—his gay streak of humour when he was so minded, his obvious sincerity and his equally obvious integrity. But there was especially that spirit which impelled him to fight and to go on fighting for what he believed to be right.
As others have said and thought, this House will be poorer, his own party will certainly be poorer, and, indeed, the country will be poorer through his untimely death. It is now of some comfort to me personally to recall that a little time ago I wrote to his devoted wife telling her of my feelings and I hope that Hugh Gaitskell knew about them, too. I think that he did. There will now be an empty place in her heart and in her home which, I imagine, not even the love of her daughters can fill.
I know, we all know, that words are useless things in sorrow such as hers, but they are all we have to offer, except sympathy. I wish, therefore, to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and suggest that we take this opportunity of sending her our deepest sympathy, coupled with the prayer that she will be given strength and courage to face what must inevitably be a lonely future.

4.2 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: I have been asked by my colleagues in Leeds to say a few words on behalf of that city and, particularly, on behalf of the people of South Leeds, where Hugh Gaitskell, his wife Dora and their daughters were loved. The people of South Leeds were very proud to have such a distinguished Member of Parliament. But Hugh Gaitskell never went to Leeds as a great man going to his constituency. He went there unobtrusively and unheralded and often stayed in a small house on a housing estate.
However pressing his work, he did all his duties as a constituency Member and held regular interviews at which anyone could see him without prior appointment. He took as much care over the case of a man or woman in need of help as in the preparation of a major speech.
Last weekend the curtains were drawn in the small houses in the streets of South Leeds, not just for a Member of Parliament but for a very dear friend whom they knew and loved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Four o'clock.